USPTO serial 78416457
BELLE BAGUETTE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SPILS, CAROL A
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 104 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with BELLE BAGUETTE?
If you own this trademark, we can monitor new filings and help with USPTO deadlines. If you do not, we can file a new U.S. application.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Sabrina C. Stavish
SABRINA C STAVISH SHERIDAN ROSS PC1560 BROADWAY STE 1200DENVER, CO 80202UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | PASTRIES, FROZEN PARTIALLY BAKED PASTRIES, MUFFINS, FROZEN PARTIALLY BAKED MUFFINS, FROZEN PARTIALLY BAKED BREADS, BREADS, COOKIES, BISCOTTI AND BAKERY GOODS, NAMELY, BREAD CRISPS | ACTIVE | — |
Related trademarks
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 15, 2010 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Oct 27, 2010 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Oct 26, 2010 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Mar 29, 2010 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 29, 2010 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 29, 2010 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 29, 2010 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 29, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 26, 2009 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 27, 2009 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 15, 2008 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 15, 2008 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 15, 2008 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 15, 2008 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 14, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 5, 2008 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 31, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 30, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 30, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 28, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 28, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jun 19, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 19, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 19, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Nov 4, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 4, 2005 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Oct 10, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 10, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 30, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 30, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 2, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 16, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 16, 2005 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Dec 21, 2004 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Dec 21, 2004 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Dec 9, 2004 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 17, 2004 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |